FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

Have a positive and constructive tone

Are on topic, clear and to-the-point

Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

All the little things gnawing on the cerebrum might have a more far reaching impact on Feds and non-Feds alike.
Seems particularly confusing that, given the apparent ineptness emanating from the Hill, there are few choices that offer optimism.
More worrisome than having fewer dollars to squander is the mental strain and resulting consequences.
The future chapters of American history will be predicated on what is written today.
For those in leadership positions, ask how you want to be remembered.

Contrarian, I think that you have a point, but I would go farther. The American People are spoiled. They want the current level of governmental services, but don't want to pay for it. They love when they get tax cuts, but then whine about the budget deficits caused in part by the tax cuts. You know who are the true patriotic citizens who really care about the country ? The 10 to 12% of the people in public opinion polls who say don't extend the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone. People are hypocrites. They want a simpler tax code as long as you don't cut or abolish the tax loopholes that impact them. In the Federal Government, the greediest and most unpatriotic are the military double dippers. You know the people who retired from the military and get a military pension, and now work as civilians. The government puts money into their TSP Accounts and will be giving them a CSRS or FERS Pension when they retire. While serving in DOD, many give "sweet heart deals" to defense contractors so that when they retire from DOD, they can get jobs with one of these defense contractors. Anyone who dares to criticize them attacked as unpatriotic Americans, but they are the ones who are unpatriotic and unAmerican. There should be a reduction for anyone receiver Social Security, Military Pension, and FERS or CSRS Pension.

Dennis, for the most part I agree with you. American People do want all the benefits and not pay the taxes. I am one who said at the time, the Bush Tax Cuts went too far. With a few excejptions (one being the marriage penalty) I would let them expire. But, the tax code needs to be simplified, but that last time they did that in 1986, the code doubled in size. Not sure how that was called simplification...............................As far as cuts in Social Security and Federal Pensions, I disagree. Those are "earned" benefits as far as I am concerned and I earned what I have to this point. To change how it works for new hires, I have no problem with as long as the government can get good people, increase the age of retirement for those currenlty under 30, I have no problem with. But, changing things for people already retired, or within a few years, it idoes not give them time to change their plans. Now of course many people do not have a plan, other than to have only Social Security, but for those people that won't change and they will go on Welfare or a disability instead. If I thought everyone would be paying more taxes as well as everyone taking a hit on pensions, I would be more for it. But, I just still see the Federal Employees being the ones to balance the budget, and that isn't going to work, not enough money there.

Dennis, you must have been a manager since you're so good at jumping to conclusions. Exactly how do you know that Linda was posting during working hours and used government equipment to do so? The only clear violation present is that you made to commen sense.

This is the second time I can recall you posting in this manner toward Linda (the last time you injected TIGTA into your reply) and it's completely uncalled for. You have no idea where's she's posting from. She could be on vacation. She could have taken a sick day. She could be on her scheduled day off on a Flexi Schedule. If you have some problem with what she says, grow up and ignore her.

I am writing during a weekday. I am also writing at night away from work. Unfortunately, your comments were censored before I had a chance to read them. I am relying on what others are writing. Will you please stop with the threats and comments about writing during working hours? Also, please do not question anyone's patriotism. I wan to read what you have to write without the baloney. Stick to the issues.-----Rob, Putt Putt, Contrarian, and I disagree with each other on many issues and we write so. But this board is supposed to be for fun. Sometimes Linda and I disagree. So what. Nothing is personal here. Just enjoy the ride and have fun with the Board.

Please do not mess with the tax code. The last time they did, the Revenue Agent's technical job increased substantially in difficulty. However, the journeyman level for RA's did not. If you ask for reform you will have a more difficult job than without the reform.

Calling anyone who served their country unpatriotic is over the top. I have no problem with you raising the argument about military double dippers, but calling them unpatriotic is insane.......It'll be interesting to see where our fearless leaders go with the Bush tax cuts. I for one believe the rates are fine where they are. I think there should be tax reform and the closing of loopholes, but that's where I draw the line. History has shown that tax increases lead to more entitlement spending.

In 1944, the Pres. signed the Individual Income Tax Act of 1944, where personal income tax rates started at 10% and went all the way up to 90%! Businesses saw their taxes go up as well with excess profit tax rates up to 90%. The Greatest Generation realized that to pay off our massive war debt, we couldn't just cut spending. We had to increase revenue through taxes. Try reading history before telling us what you think it has shown.

The point of my post was simple. We don't have an under taxation problem in this country. We have an addiction to spending. You can't tax your way out of a $16 trillion hole. I'm glad you have the confidence that any new taxes will be used to pay down the debt, but you obviously aren't paying attention to what our elected officials are doing in DC. They are spending money not saving money. This is not 1944. Additional tax revenue will be used to expand entitlements.

There are reductions for those drawing more than one pension -- some by regulation and some by age. Military pensioners, hired as civil service since 1984, will be under FERS. They may draw a pension while working in civil service, but subsequent other pensions will be limited. They've already paid into social security, while in the military, so that will just continue. They may have paid into TSP, while in the military, but there was no matching funds. The annuity they will earn will be quite small.
I retired under CSRS with 41 plus years service (3 military). I am about 5 credits from earning social security. If a worked to earn those credits, my social security annuity would be about $338 monthly, not a princely sum.

I have zero confidence in anything the 535 congressional "geniuses" say,do,advise,etc.We'd be better off to just tell all of them to stay home forever.But their overinflated egos wouldn't allow it.six year old kindergarten children can solve problems faster/better than the 535 clowns on the hill.

Hiking income tax rates sky high do not produce more revenue, just the opposite. The Bush tax cuts produce $4.8 trillion more than the eight years under Clinton (2005 constant dollars). Similarly, the Reagan tax cuts produce $2.9 trillim more than the last eight years. Cuts during the Johnson years produced similar results. Per the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics there is a point of diminishing results (25 to 30 percent) beyond which revenue decreases. My source is the OMB historical tables at whitehouse.gov.

Not sure I trust the Chicago School of Economics. Who got all of the money during the Reagan years. And you are comparing the infamous stagflation years to an economy favoring the wealthy. And again, who got the money with the Bush tax cuts?-----I took a quick peak at your whitehouse.gov
cite. I found nothing. Be more specific.

Moderate, I lean towards the Austrian school, myself. My point is revenue. Revenue is what's needed, not redistribution. Why should you care of the upper percentile received more, if the results were they paid more than before? As the figures are corrected to constant 2005 dollars, inflation is not a factor. The source, once more, is http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. You'll have to do a bit of math to arrive at my computations -- only subtraction and addition. The 1964 thru 1971 tax cuts also resulted in $522 billiom more than the eight years before that (1953 to 1970) when the tax rate dropped for 91% to 77% and lower.

Uh, did you forget that 1956-1963 contained 2 recessions. That might be why revenues from 1963-1970 exceeded 1956-1963.
As to why I should care if the upper class gets the benefits while the rest of us get crumbs and less services, I guess I do not believe in rule by the upper classes.

Moderate, In all three instances, cutting the tax rates resulted in significant increases in revenue -- despite recessions in the previous 8 years that should result in decreased revenue for a decade. Both Reagan and Bush tax cuts came after recessions, or worse -- Carter's disasterous administration and stagflation that lasted for over 12 years (Nixon, Ford and Carter) and the dotcom bomb of the Clinton era. A breakdown of revenue sources in the Reagan and Bush adminstrations reveal that much of the revenue increase was in corporate tax revenue. That's people being hired and jobs, jobs, jobs. Not rule by an upper class.

And who do you think controls these corporations? You are not naive enough to believe it is democratically controlled the middle class people.----Again, you are comparing stagflation years to the Reagan years. And again, look at what Bush gave us after 2007. Revenues are down sharply. And who is getting the money with these tax cuts. The corporations are increasing dividends to the shareholders (the wealthy have control) and salaries of the wealthy executives. (I will say that I own stock and do receive dividends, but nothing like the wealthy get) The wealthy get the bigger tax cuts.

Here at TSA they are exercising another option- position downgrades. 15's are downgraded to 14s (if you're lucky). Ironic part is Lockheed is the HR contractor that justifies the job description that you have when you are promoted into the 14 or 15 position. Lockheed is the contractor that evaluates you while you are in that position, and Lockheed is the one that determines the position is not a 14 or 15 position and downgrades you. Lockheed-3, Employees-0. Why you ask? Because COngress has deemed TSA too top heavy, so they protect the good old boys and downgrade others...

Late getting in on this thread, but maybe someone will read it. Starting at the top, Congress has created a monster they cannot rein in; capital driven election system. You could be the most honest and sincere elected public official, but you will be haunted, badgered and influenced by all those IOUs. Politicians and the public believing money has no effect are deluding themselves. Because they cannot cut the check directly to these contribution sources, they have to bribe folks in the Govt from the high level agencies down to the last Govt person cutting the check. I have worked for DOD and DOJ, so I'm familiar with their bribe chains but I'm sure the DOH and others run similarly. The company lobbyist gets a buy in from a politician or two, then the company they represent finds a "friendly" Pentagon or DOJ Program Manager nearing retirement and offer that sweet 6 figure (some cases 7)consulting job. They use their power to promote or find a fellow retiree at the Acquistion level. It then propagates down through the managment chain until they find some young and upward driven individual who will sign the contract and cut the checks, while getting that GS-13/14/15 or O-5/6/7 promotion. If I could change things, the Govt retirees (Military or Civilian) would have to stay off the payroll of any Government affiliated company for 2 years. As for the Politicians, they get their public debates on TV, radio, and internet for no charge. They get a free website to express their views on issues and how they would deal with them. Since their donations are received from tax payer dollars anyways, why not just get rid of the middle men (or women). Unfortunately, reality steps in and everyone wants a piece of the Govt cash cow so this will never fly but I thought it fun to throw this out there. Based on the numerous bills targeting and demonizing Govt employees (Republican,Democrat, Whitehouse) with no way to publicly take them on, I think we have a lot to worry about unless you get in the bribe chain and then you will be fine. I wonder when the US will have to declare bankruptcy and China comes calling for their loans? I guess I better start taking some Madarin language courses. 好运 (Hǎo yùn)